Did the Historical Jesus Really Tell His Disciples to “Eat My Body” and “Drink My Blood”?

The long-standing aversion by ancient Jews to cannibalism and the consumption of blood should require no discussion. Biblical injunctions or warnings against the former can be found in such passages as Lev. 26:29, Deut. 28:53-57, Jer. 19:9, Lam. 2:20, 4:10, and Ezek. 5:10. Instructions regarding the latter are found in Gen. 9:4 and Lev. 17:14. These prohibitions have been noted by many scholars in connection with statements attributed to Jesus at the Last Supper. Could Jesus have incorporated symbols of cannibalism and blood consumption during a Jewish Passover meal and instructed his Jewish followers to repeat it “in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19)?

Mark, widely regarded as the earliest of the New Testament gospels, quotes Jesus as saying:

“And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, ‘Take; this is my body [sōma].’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many’ (Mark 14:22-24 ESV).

Note the Greek word translated here as “body,” sōma, and also the mention of “the [new] covenant.” One might also stop to ask: Who are the “many” (not all?)? The importance of these elements will be discussed below.

That Jesus sprang this shocking conceptualization on simple Jewish people at this high holy feast seems incredible to some. It certainly fails the criterion of contextual credibility. Neither does it satisfy the criterion of multiple independent attestation, as we will see. For the multiple occurrences testify not to the historical veracity of Jesus’s own utterance, but to the growing use of a Pauline invention.

Continue reading “Did the Historical Jesus Really Tell His Disciples to “Eat My Body” and “Drink My Blood”?”

Agrapha – The Lost Sayings of Jesus

Those who have read my previous blog post, “Do We Have the Authentic Words of Jesus,” already know that the sayings of, and stories about, Jesus first circulated by word of mouth. Neither Jesus nor his immediate followers seem to have been educated to the point of being able to write. This was not uncommon in the ancient world where only 10% or fewer of the people could do so.

The stream of what scholars refer to as “oral tradition” flowed on without restriction, both geographically and linguistically, for centuries. It was probably not until at least four decades after the crucifixion that the first attempt at recording Jesus’s sayings in writing took place (the Gospel of Mark, if not earlier with “Q”). But the oral stream flowed on unimpeded. Picture the gospel authors as people dipping their buckets into the stream of oral tradition and capturing some of the contents in order to write it down. The authors do not capture all of the stream’s contents and the stream flows on. In fact, despite the appearance of numerous gospels between 70 CE and the end of the second century, the stream continued to flow, no one capturing everything in it. We can see evidence of this in the four New Testament gospels. Each gospel features sayings of Jesus not recorded in the other three. And there were more sayings besides these that were recorded in other written forms. They are called agrapha by scholars, meaning “not written,” i.e., in the four New Testament gospels.

Because of this uncontrolled stream that flowed for at least 200 years, scholars cannot help but ask if that stream became polluted over time. In other words, does every recorded saying of Jesus actually go back to the historical person? Clearly not. How one decides which are authentic is not the subject of this post. Instead, let’s take a look at some of the sayings attributed to Jesus that were captured in other written sources outside the four New Testament gospels. Perhaps some of these will strike you as something Jesus might actually have said.

A few sayings of Jesus not captured in the New Testament gospels can be found elsewhere within the New Testament. A well-known maxim attributed to Jesus is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). Various forms of this saying were popular in the ancient world; Plutarch, for example, credits the 5th-century BCE Persian king Artaxerxes I with saying it. There is, of course, no a priori reason why Jesus could not also have said it. Another saying attributed to Jesus and found in Acts is, “John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 11:16).

Continue reading “Agrapha – The Lost Sayings of Jesus”

Baptism: From John to Jesus to Paul

Baptism comes from the Greek word baptizo which means “to immerse” in the sense of making clean with water. Ritual washings were commonplace in the first-century, Greco-Roman world. The purpose was not hygienic but sacred: such washings symbolized purification in anticipation of performing some holy ritual or entering sacred space. From archaeological discoveries, it appears that ritual washings were widely performed in Jewish Palestine at that time. Washing pools, called miqva’ot, have been found all over Israel, inside homes, beside synagogues, and around the ruins of the Temple.

Jewish priests were most concerned with remaining ritually pure due to their frequent presence in the Jerusalem Temple. Rules governing the need for priestly purity are articulated in the book of Leviticus in the Torah. Other reasons for ritual washing by Jews were established around the time of John the Baptist. Evidence of more widespread practice of ritual washing can be found in the New Testament gospels. Pharisees had taken upon themselves the purity requirements normally reserved for priests which included a number of ritual washings. These included washing the hands before eating (Exodus 30:17-21) and ritually washing cooking and eating items (Lev. 11:32ff; 15:12). Jesus is portrayed as speaking out against focusing on such matters when weightier points of the law were being ignored (Mark 7:6-9).

Ritual washing for repentance and atonement from sin perhaps has its origin among the sectarian group of Jews known as Essenes (4Q414). Originally a priestly group that separated itself from the Jerusalem Temple in the 2nd c. BCE, the Essenes established themselves by the banks of the Dead Sea at a place called Qumran. Since the Temple was deemed unacceptable for sacrificial atonement for sin, the Essenes turned to other means of atonement such as prayer, righteous living, and ritual bathing.

It is unclear, and frequently debated, whether John the Baptist was an Essene or was exposed to Essene ideas. There are several clues in the gospels that lend credence to the theory of some connection between the two. John, like the Essenes, had an apocalyptic worldview. He proclaimed that the end of the world was about to occur. God would soon exercise his wrath against the sinful and redeem the righteous. John encouraged the people to get right with God now. Rather than waiting until they could get to the Temple in Jerusalem to offer sacrifices for their sins, the people should repent before John and submit to his washing as a sign of atonement. (It is unclear, according to the textual evidence, whether John’s baptism brought on repentance or was a result of it; in any event, repentance was a prime ingredient.) This procedure may have alarmed the priests in charge of the Temple who reserved the right, per Torah, to pronounce sins forgiven (e.g., Lev. 4:20, 26, 35, etc.). There is evidence in both the gospels and in the writings of first-century Jewish historian Josephus, that John aroused enmity from both the leading priests and the political authorities in Galilee. Among the reasons were the crowds attracted by John, his claim that political realities were about to change, and, no doubt, his pronouncement of forgiveness for sins (Matt. 21:23-27, 32). John was of priestly descent according to the Gospel of Luke (1:5, 13).

It is incorrect to characterize John’s baptism as an initiation or an intentional “once for all” washing. If John’s baptism for repentance was performed only once it was because John did not think the world would last much longer. In John’s view, one would not have had time for repeated washings to prepare for the new age. Neither John nor his baptizands could know that the world would not end and that neither God nor his messiah would not establish His rule after all.

Our earliest gospel, Mark, indicates that Jesus was baptized by John in the same way as everyone else (Mark 1:1-18). Later gospels, apparently embarrassed by this acknowledgement of John’s superiority or the notion that Jesus had sins to repent, mask the event. The Gospel of Matthew creates an extended conversation between Jesus and John wherein John admits his inferiority but baptizes Jesus anyway. Luke has Jesus baptized after John is imprisoned (so who performed it?). The Gospel of John does not even mention it. It should be remembered that these are Christian texts designed to highlight Jesus as the hero, even at John’s expense. Nevertheless, it appears that some of Jesus’s followers were baptized by John as well (John 1:35-37; Acts 1:21-22). They were all apocalyptically oriented, believing that the end was just around the corner.

The arrest and ultimate execution of John must have caused many to rethink the imminence of the Day of the Lord. John clearly was not the messiah since he died before doing the things a messiah was expected to do. Jesus picked up the apocalyptic and prophetic mantle of John and ran with it. He took his message to the towns and villages, not limiting his missionary field to watery places as John may have done in order to effect baptisms. Whether Jesus baptized or not is debated (John 4:1-2). He probably did for a while but the gospels in general play down a specifically baptizing mission for Jesus and his disciples before Easter.

Yet baptism would not be forgotten after Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection. This indicates that it was always part of the program of the Jesus movement even if rarely mentioned in the gospels. According to the gospels, which may be suspect at this point, John promised that God would send someone who would baptize with spirit/fire as well as water (Mat. 3:11). This spirit baptism seems to have begun after the resurrection. An early Christian belief was that the Spirit of God empowered the followers of Jesus to continue to spread the message of the end times by ensuring that the people would be found in a righteous state. This was the focus for John, Jesus, and Jesus’s disciples; it was not about individual salvation.

The New Testament Acts of the Apostles dates the first “baptism” by the Holy Spirit (as fire) to the first Pentecost (Feast of Weeks) after the resurrection. Tongues like fire are said to have alit upon the disciples after which they proceeded to baptize with water and spirit. Sometimes the spirit was conferred afterward by the laying on of hands (Acts 6:6; 8:16-17). Other times the conferral of the spirit preceded baptism (Acts 10:44-48). Generally, though, it seems that the two were meant to go together (Acts 19:5-6).

Whether Paul was baptized or not is debatable though he probably was (Acts 9:17 only describes a laying on of hands to confer the spirit to Paul). His primary concern, of course, was not so much the righteousness of the Jewish people but how to include the nations (non-Jews) in God’s promise of everlasting life. The nations were comprised of sinners with no means of atonement since they did not subscribe to Torah. Paul adapted the spirit baptism of the Palestinian Jesus-movement for the nations in order to “justify” (make righteous) non-Jews before God. For non-Jews, being made righteous could not simply be a matter of ritual washing. That was alright for Jews who were the chosen people of God guided all their lives by Torah. More was required for non-Jews.

Paul came up with the idea of a non-Jew being baptized “into the death” of Jesus Christ (Romans 6:3-4). This joining in the death of the god was not unheard of in the Greco-Roman world; ritual washings were part of the process of joining certain mystery cults in Paul’s day (e.g., the cults of the Great Mother and Attis, Isis and Osiris, Mithras, etc.). By joining in the death of the god (e.g., Osiris, Mithras, Jesus), the believer might also join in his/her rebirth. Paul was cautious about guaranteeing this rebirth, or resurrection as apocalyptically-minded Jews understood it. He only speaks of the “hope” of resurrection (Romans 5:2; Galatians 5:5; 1 Thess. 1:3). Nevertheless, this process in effect atoned for the sins of the non-Jew (though Paul used other terms like “redemption” rather than atonement or even forgiveness). After such baptism the spirit of God (conferred in the process) would work within them, according to Paul, as evidence of their adoption as “sons” of the God of Israel. These “gifts of the spirit” included speaking in tongues, prophesying, healing, etc. (Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:1-13).

Paul seems to have adopted and adapted baptism for his non-Jewish audience but did not consider his own personal calling to specifically include baptizing. He claims that he did baptize on occasion but apparently left most of the work to his assistants (1 Cor. 1:14-17). Paul never addresses in his letters the subject of baptizing a person multiple times. Again, this is likely due to his apocalyptic outlook. Paul expected the return (parousia) of Christ at any moment (1 Thess. 4:15-17). There should have been no reason or time to conduct multiple baptisms. In fact, Paul does not seem prepared for the situation in which the baptized Christ-follower continues to sin. He instructs his communities to throw the sinners out (1 Cor. 5:5; Rom. 16:17)! Had Paul a longer-range mission in mind, he might have developed some protocols for treating the sinning believer. On one occasion he does counsel forgiveness and readmission (2 Cor. 2:7-10).

The event horizon has as much to do with the administration of baptism as with the rationale behind it. Regardless of who performed it, the early Christ-community saw baptism as a last-minute “righteousing” to prepare the people (“Jew or Greek”) for God’s coming or the coming of His messiah. No thought was given to the failure of that day to materialize. How might baptism have been conceived if the day were thought to be far off? Would the ritual have even been instituted?

Baptism appears to be a residual ritual left over from a first-century apocalyptic movement, one that had to be reinterpreted if it was to be kept as a rite within the emerging non-Jewish religion known as Christianity. It developed, in fact, as a non-repeatable initiation rite as well as a sign of spiritual cleansing for members in the young church (Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 13, 166). Baptism as initiation was not foreign to Judaism either, with some texts advocating such a process for non-Jews (especially/only women? See Joseph and Aseneth 14:12-13, 15) to be admitted to Judaism. Christians eventually added a trinitarian formula to the baptismal rite, washing the initiate in the “name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19; Didache 7.1, 3). In time, Christian baptism would only be performed on converts who had successfully spent up to a year being instructed in the faith and who could memorize a Christian creed or properly answer a set of doctrinal questions (catechism). Orthodox and Conservative Jews continue to practice ritual washings for purity or holiness’s sake, especially at festivals, often following Biblical prescriptions where possible.

Animals in the New Testament

Specialists and general readers alike spend so much time focusing on the various human characters in the New Testament that it is easy to overlook the role that members of the animal kingdom play in its stories and teachings. Animals feature throughout the entire Bible playing memorable parts usually in the service of moral lessons (most people have heard about the serpent in the Garden of Eden). The New Testament is not without its animal references either. But even more surprisingly, many people imagine animals in stories where they never appear at all!

For example, nearly everyone reading this is familiar with the Christmas story – it’s the story of Jesus’s birth. Recreations are on display in thousands of homes and churches during the Christmas season, featured on TV and in movies, and sermonized in church. Animals play a prominent role in these depictions. Joseph, for example, brings a very pregnant Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem riding on a donkey. The couple are forced to lodge in a stable with oxen and asses. Baby Jesus must be placed in an animal food trough for lack of a proper crib. Wise men from the east arrive on camels while shepherds bring their flock to Bethlehem to see the newborn king. Joseph is later warned to take his family to Egypt to escape King Herod’s wrath and dutifully places Mary back upon a donkey, perhaps the same one she rode from Nazareth. Animals everywhere!

Unfortunately, none of these animals appear in the gospel accounts of Jesus’s birth. Mary is not said to ride a donkey (ever); no animals are described as cohabiting the stable with the family; no camels accompany the wise men; and, while the shepherds were earlier watching their flock (Luke 2:8), no sheep are said to arrive with them at the stable. These animal appearances are all the result of later Christian imagination perhaps partly inspired by Jesus’s accusation in Luke 13:15 (“You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger and lead it away to water it?”) The role of these animals in the nativity story began in the second century in such extra-canonical texts as the Proto-gospel of James and the Infancy Gospel of pseudo-Matthew.

Nevertheless, the first animals we encounter in the gospel accounts of Jesus’s life are, indeed, mentioned in the birth stories. Following her delivery, Mary must be purified as commanded in the Torah (Leviticus 12). The rite involves the sacrifice of a lamb and/or two pigeons or turtledoves at the Temple in Jerusalem. Being poor, the family offered the latter. A dove features again in Jesus’s very first adult act, his baptism by John. The dove is meant to symbolize God’s spirit alighting on Jesus as he rises from the water. In fact, birds were frequently associated with the divine in antiquity due to their ability to soar upward toward the heavens. Birds were known to act as messengers of the gods.

Along with the pigeons and turtledoves mentioned above, birds are featured in a number of Jesus’s teachings. He points out how birds “do not spin” (Matthew 6:26; Luke 12:24 calls them “ravens”) and yet are clothed by God. Birds play meaningful roles in Jesus’s parable of the small mustard seed which grows so large it provides nests for birds (Matthew 13:32). Jesus laments that, while the lowly birds have nests, Jesus, as the Son of Man, has nowhere to call home (Matthew 8:20). Birds devour seed carelessly scattered by the sower in another of Jesus’s parables (Matthew 13:4). Pigeons again appear in the story of Jesus’s stormy visit to the Temple in Jerusalem where he overturns the tables of those who sold the commercially-raised birds for sacrificial purposes (Matthew 21:12). Pigeons and doves were considered ritually clean by Jews and thus appropriate for sacrificing. For Jesus, doves were symbols of innocence and cited as role models for his followers (Matthew 10:16). In Jewish thought, the dove was the ultimate symbol of Israel and of the soul.

Continue reading “Animals in the New Testament”

Fatherhood in the Gospels: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Fatherhood is well-represented in the New Testament. One of the very few authentic words spoken by Jesus and recorded in the gospels may be the Aramaic form of father: abba. Jesus, like other rabbis of ancient Judaism, characterized God as the male parent, benevolent but just, forgiving but demanding. The first-century world was a patriarchal one in which the father was head of the family and men generally ruled the political and social world. Just as the kings of Israel were men (with a rare queen here and there), so the God of Israel was conceptualized in masculine terms. In the pagan world, the gods could be of either gender though the primary god of the Greco-Romans, Zeus/Jupiter, was envisioned as a male.

There are a number of references to fathers other than God in the gospels. I thought it might be interesting to look at three of them, each distinctly different and spanning the spectrum of what we might judge to be good examples of fatherhood, bad examples, and just plain dysfunctional examples. Let’s begin with the first human father mentioned, Joseph of Nazareth.

Despite doctrinal belief in Jesus’s origins as the product of a union between the Spirit of God and a human woman, the role of human father in Jesus’s life was apparently played by Joseph, probably a lifelong resident of Nazareth. Despite the opening story of Jesus’s supernatural conception in the Gospel of Luke, that author twice refers to Joseph unabashedly as Jesus’s father (2:33, 48). The Gospel of John, which takes great pains to characterize Jesus as God’s preexistent Word made flesh, has the residents of Capernaum call Jesus “the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know” (6:42). Both Jesus and Joseph are described by the Greek word tekton, a builder or craftsman (frequently translated in English as “carpenter”). The Gospel of Matthew refers to Jesus as “the tekton’s son” (13:55) despite its opening story of Jesus being conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. Only the Gospel of Mark avoids calling Joseph the father of Jesus and instead calls Jesus “the son of Mary” but adds that he has brothers and sisters (6:3). This gives us a basic understanding of Jesus’s family situation.

But what of the story of Jesus’s miraculous conception? Was Jesus Joseph’s genetic son or an adopted one? Much depends on how one reads and accounts for the story of the supernatural pregnancy of Mary. It is common knowledge that the two birth stories of Jesus featured in Matthew and Luke are quite different in detail. Yet, they agree on several points. One is that, whoever fathered Jesus, it was not Joseph. Later attacks on Jesus’s origins claimed that Mary had become pregnant by another man while betrothed to Joseph. Adultery would have been the accusation in real time if Joseph was known not to be the father of Mary’s baby. Matthew even makes the point that Joseph knew that Mary had become pregnant by someone else and he seriously considered abandoning her (Matthew 1:19). Nevertheless, whether Mary told him the story of her conception as we have it in the gospel accounts, or whether he believed it, he took mother and child under his wing and raised Jesus as his own.

Continue reading “Fatherhood in the Gospels: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”

Do We Have the Authentic Words of Jesus?

My New Testament students are sometimes surprised when I ask this question in class. Most of them have never thought about it before. Why would we even ask whether we have the authentic words of Jesus? Aren’t they recorded in quotations in the gospels? Weren’t the gospel authors ear- and eye-witnesses writing down what they saw and heard? It turns out, in fact, that this is a very important question and one that is not considered seriously enough by many who read the Bible.

There are many reasons for pursuing the question of the precise words, known in Latin as the ipissima verba, of Jesus. For one thing, some of Jesus’s sayings seem contradictory. For example, Jesus teaches that one must follow the Ten Commandments (Matthew 19:17) and honor one’s father and mother (Mark 10:19). Yet he also says that one must hate one’s parents in order to follow him (Luke 14:26). Some statements by Jesus seem difficult to apply literally. Some are just hard to understand.

When comparing Jesus as portrayed in the Gospel of Mark with Jesus as portrayed in the Gospel of John, one might be forgiven for wondering if the two authors were even writing about the same person! Jesus in John’s gospel never speaks in parables while Jesus in Mark’s gospel does so frequently. Jesus in Mark never equates himself to God the Father while Jesus in John frequently does. Jesus in Mark wants it kept secret who he is; John’s Jesus never stops talking about who he is.

In trying to reach an answer to our query, it is best to place ourselves in the context of the first-century Roman world, specifically Jewish Palestine, at the time of Jesus. No serious scholar doubts that Jesus was, among other things, a gifted teacher. If the gospels are any guide at all, Jesus taught using various forms of figurative language: parables, aphorisms, similes, etc. He was an itinerant Jewish craftsman who gave up his occupation to wander about the Holy Land teaching about God and making various observations on everyday life.

Now imagine Jesus actually doing that. Envision him in Capernaum in Galilee surrounded by a few disciples. He decides that the time is right for trying out a story he has been composing in his mind about a Samaritan who gives aid to a fallen Jew. The parable is well-received and his audience is moved to consider the story’s various implications. Four months later, Jesus is in Jericho in Judea. This time he is surrounded by a more skeptical crowd; some are downright hostile. For different reasons, Jesus feels it is appropriate to share his Samaritan parable, knowing that the effect on this crowd will be different. Ask yourself: What are the chances that in Jericho Jesus recited his parable using the exact same wording that he used when he told it in Capernaum? I mean exact, word-for-word, repetition. The answer is nil. Not only would Jesus not be concerned about telling the parable identically, word-for-word the same way he did previously; but he probably intentionally altered the parable given the different circumstances and the different impact he wanted to make on this different audience.

Continue reading “Do We Have the Authentic Words of Jesus?”

In the Flesh? In Spirit Only? The Nature of the Risen Christ

It may be surprising to learn that early Christians did not initially agree as to the form in which Christ was raised from the dead. Possibly this is because relatively few claimed to have seen him and even fewer left any details about the experience. Ultimately, the church had to decide if Christ’s fleshly body was raised or just his soul or spirit. There were disagreements for a long time.

Resurrection itself was a distinctively Jewish belief. It was tied to the events of the Day of the Lord, that time when God, perhaps in conjunction with his representative or messiah, would reclaim the world which had gone astray through sin and disobedience. God would not only destroy the forces of evil (both divine and human) but refashion the world anew as it was in the mythical time of Eden. Not all Jews were apocalypticists but those who were generally agreed that during this time of future renewal the righteous dead would be raised to new life to be able to enjoy the reclaimed world. Some held that even sinners would be resurrected so that they could instead be punished.

What form would these resurrected individuals take? Not everyone agreed. If the words of Jesus quoted in the Gospel of Matthew are historically representative of Jesus’s thoughts on the matter, he believed that resurrected people would be “like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30), meaning that they would be divinized in some way (i.e., no longer flesh and blood). Whether or not this was Jesus’s view, it was not an uncommon belief among Jewish apocalypticists (which Jesus was). The Second Apocalypse of Baruch, a Jewish text from the late first or early second century, says that resurrected people “shall be made like angels” (51.10). Within the collection of Jewish sectarian texts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, is written the hope that each member of the sect “abide forever as an Angel of the Presence in the holy habitation” (1Q28b 4.25). And, in a much-overlooked passage by Paul, the apostle considers the risen Christ to be an angel (Galatians 4:14), probably the Angel of the Lord (Genesis 16, 22; Exodus 3:2, 10; etc.).

It is Paul and Paul alone who gives us firsthand information about his experience of the risen Christ. He also lists a number of appearances afforded other believers prior to his (1 Corinthians 15:5-8). In every case he uses the Greek ōpthē, emphasizing the experience’s visual quality (not audible, not tangible). Paul does not distinguish the manner of the appearance of Christ to him from that made manifest to the earlier recipients.

Later within the same letter, Paul apparently responds to a question about the nature of the resurrected person. This question was raised by his Gentile (non-Jewish) readers who considered the Jewish notion of resurrection, by which they understood that their corpses should rise from the grave, to be disgusting. Paul is quite clear in his explanation: the human body, sown as flesh, will rise in spirit; “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 15:35-54).

Does this view of the resurrected individual reflect the earliest views of the nature of the risen Christ? If we turn to the evidence presented in the New Testament about how other authors besides Paul, none of them eyewitnesses and all writing in the late first or early second century, understood the resurrected form of Jesus, we find conflict and contradiction.

Continue reading “In the Flesh? In Spirit Only? The Nature of the Risen Christ”

The Death of James, the Brother of Jesus

Although mentioned several times in the New Testament, Jesus’s brother James remains a shadowy figure. He is named in the Gospel of Mark as one of Jesus’s four brothers along with Joses (“little Joseph”), Judas (Judah), and Simon (Mark 6:3). None of the four gospels report much, if any, participation by the brothers in the earthly mission of Jesus although the Gospel of John seems to presuppose a supportive, if uncomprehending, role for them (John 2:12, 7:3-10).

Despite such ambiguous beginnings, the brothers (and their mother, Mary) are cited in the Acts of the Apostles as being among the very first Christ-believing Jews to form a community in Jerusalem (Acts 1:14). Later, James inexplicably appears as spokesman for the group, seemingly filling that position after Peter had departed “to another place” (Acts 12:17). James then speaks for the Jerusalem community when Paul and other missionaries from Antioch come to discuss the admittance of non-Jews to the growing number of Christ-followers (Acts 15; the details of this “Apostolic Conference” are also given by Paul in his Letter to the Galatians 2:2-10; note also the reappearance of Peter). Paul encounters James once more, according to Acts, when Paul visits Jerusalem for the last time and is questioned by James regarding allegations that he has been telling Jews to abandon Torah observance (Acts 21:18-21).

Paul himself is a source of valuable information about James. It is through Paul that we know that James had a vision of the risen Christ (1 Cor. 15:7). Though we have no details of the encounter in the New Testament, a second-century, apocryphal gospel known as the Gospel of the Hebrews, gives a narrative account of the episode. Paul also relates how he first met James (and Peter) in Jerusalem during a two-week stay several years after he had received his own vision of the risen Jesus (Gal. 1:19). Paul considered James to be one of the three “pillars” of the Jerusalem community along with Peter and John (Gal. 2:9).

Though the Letter of James in the New Testament is traditionally ascribed to James, the brother of Jesus, his authorship is doubtful. That being said, we come to the end of the information on James available to us from the New Testament. For more information, we must consult other historical works.

An account of the history of the early Christ-faith was prepared by a second-century, Jewish Christ-believer known as Hegesippus. His five-volume “Memoirs” apparently contained all sorts of information about the early church and its preaching. I say “apparently” because the work is mostly lost to us. A few passages from it were quoted by the fourth-century Christian historian Eusebius of Caesarea, in a text we do have. Fortunately, the Hegesippus passages preserved in Eusebius’s Church History are mostly about James.

Continue reading “The Death of James, the Brother of Jesus”

Early Christian Teaching on Same-gender Sex

Recently, the United Methodist General Conference for 2019 passed a controversial piece of legislation called The Traditional Plan which essentially affirms “the church’s current bans on ordaining LGBTQ clergy and officiating at or hosting same-sex marriage” (www.umnews.org). Supporters characterized the plan as adhering to “biblical” values. Members who supported a more liberal plan, called The One Church Plan, were disappointed and discouraged. Students, faculty, and staff on my campus have been asked to sign a petition by The Freedom Center for Social Justice that condemns the UM decision citing “Christ’s frustrations with religious conservatives” as a model for action.

Discussions such as the one being conducted in the United Methodist Church, and in many Christian churches, present an excellent opportunity to examine the history of the church’s teaching on same-gender sex. How and why did the earliest Christ-believers address these issues?

During the first decades of the movement founded in the name of Jesus, a small, Jewish sect took their message of Jesus’s messiahship and the imminent end of the age to other Jews and, eventually, to non-Jews throughout the Roman Empire. The original message was simple at first: Repent of your sins, be baptized, receive the Holy Spirit, and wait for the risen Jesus to return and bring about the Kingdom of God (Acts 2:36, 38).

When this message was eventually transmitted from Jewish mouths to non-Jewish ears it was adapted to a somewhat different culture with different requirements. Non-Jews belonged to a culture that was different in many ways from Judaism. For example, religion for non-Jews (pagans, polytheists) did not concern itself with personal beliefs but with ritual practice (known as “cult”): Worship the gods on time and in the right way and one’s religious obligations were satisfied. Jews, on the other hand, were concerned not only with proper cultic practice but with proper behavior as well. Behavioral standards were specified in the Torah (“instruction”; the first five books of the Bible). Christ-believing, Jewish missionaries who brought word of Messiah Jesus to non-Jews had to deal with the fact that non-Jews had no similar moral instruction, the result, they reasoned, of worshiping a variety of gods (“idolatry”). Greek and Roman philosophers did indeed debate moral issues and cultural behavior and often set standards that applied to their philosophical schools but these discussions were limited to the educated elite who had the wherewithal for such reflection. A cultural clash between Jew and pagan was impossible to avoid. In fact, it was already being reenacted everyday somewhere in the Roman Empire.

Hundreds of thousands of Jews had been scattered throughout the empire since before the second-century BCE. They met weekly in their synagogues where they read and discussed Torah and its ethical and moral requirements. It is a historical fact that significant numbers of non-Jews were attracted to the synagogues for this kind of teaching, having few other sources of moral and ethical instruction. Romans valued virtue (generally defined as controlling one’s passions) and it seemed to the non-Jews attending Jewish synagogues that instructions for living a virtuous life could be found in the Jewish Torah. It was largely through these non-Jews, called “God-fearers,” that Christ-believing missionaries reached out into the greater non-Jewish world with their message.

Continue reading “Early Christian Teaching on Same-gender Sex”

Did the First Jewish Believers in Jesus Continue to Sacrifice at the Temple?

The question of whether the disciples of Jesus ceased sacrificing at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem following his death is one that comes up occasionally among scholars interested in understanding the very earliest form of Christ-belief. This question has come up again in a new book by Paula Fredriksen, When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation (Yale, 2018).

There is no question that all of the earliest believers in Jesus as the resurrected Son of God were Jews. That acknowledgment represents a seismic shift in modern scholarship toward reappraising Jesus’s Jewishness and taking his religio-cultural background seriously. Scholars now try to understand the things that Jesus said and did in the cultural context of first-century Judaism. Judaism in the first century was complex, not at all uniform. There were many ways of being Jewish at the time. Jesus began to mark out another way of being Jewish by the things he did and said and required of his followers. According to Jesus’s own “brand” of Jewishness, then, did he deem worship in the Temple in Jerusalem acceptable and did he teach others to do so?

The importance of this question is tied up with the events of Jesus’s last week in Jerusalem. Each of the four New Testament gospels suggests that Jesus came into conflict with Jewish Temple authorities who directed that Jesus be arrested, perhaps interrogated, and then handed over to the local Roman authority, Pontius Pilate, for judgment and execution. Scholars seek to understand how and why Jesus might have been perceived as hostile to the Temple, its priestly administrators, and even to Rome. All four gospels report that Jesus made a public display of overturning the tables of businessmen and tradesmen operating in the Temple courtyard (Mark 11:15ff and par.). What was the reason for this? Did Jesus reject the Temple and teach his followers to do so?

Continue reading “Did the First Jewish Believers in Jesus Continue to Sacrifice at the Temple?”